Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 530 in total
Topic: The Future Of Humanity 2 days ago

re 161 and 165:


You say that K questions the existence of the self. Leaving aside “what K says” regarding the self - is the truth or nature of self clearly understood by “me”? Is understanding the self important to “you and me”? What IS self to “me/you”? And is the question of the self a strictly intellectual debate that is totally isolated from and irrelevant to living and experiencing, so to speak? Is it just an academic debate which is unrelated to sorrow, joy, self-understanding, relationship, conflict, and so on? The sorrow of living, like self, is not rooted in the big toe, is it?


You ask, “Don't we have to ask how much of who I feel that I am is illusory?” Why do “we have to”? If I do NOT consider self illusory, if I am NOT in sorrow, if “I” am SURE that I know what self is, if I am comfortable with the view of self which has been inculcated in “me”, then DO “I” or would I question whether or not I/self is illusory --- except perhaps as an intellectual exercise for entertainment? Isn't it when I face the fact of sorrow - my own and the world's - that I question who or what IS this "I" who suffers?

Isn't what makes a question “right” in the context of our questioning life and relationship, that it is vital, urgent, intense, that it comes from shared experiencing, not from experience? Experiencing is “what is” in the moment. Experience is “what was”. And “shared experiencing” means that we human beings are experiencing the same thing in the moment. So we are not sharing past experiences and ideas rooted in the past. No?

If a question is vital, urgent, intense to both of us in the moment, is that what makes for communication, even if we don’t fully understand each other or the question? If it is vital, urgent, intense, then our energy is gathered or gathers itself and any question which arises is "right". Is this so?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

Or as Shakespeare put it:

He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies – and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

—?Act III, Merchant of Venice

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: But still! I am a separate self, too. I go to my job and home to my house. I waste time on kinfonet, while someone else doesn't go near it. I'm different from someone else, even as we are the same. Just sayin'.


You keep saying this and other things to the same effect as though it contradicts or refutes the oneness of the mind. It doesn’t. K himself never disputed the fact that we do differ in many ways. Nor does anyone else here as far as I can see. K referred over and over to the fact that we differ - in appearance, customes, culture, characteristics, occupation, talents, “life stories”, and so on. What do particular attributes have to do with the oneness of the human brain’s functioning, with the universal psychological processes which result in duality?

Man is conditioned to think that he IS different, unique, better, worse, smarter, stupider, self-made, competent, incompetent, special or unimportant, and so on. He is not. In experiencing of anger, fear, conceit, desire, pretense, sorrow, and so on, he is one with the world, isn't he? The narratives and circumstances vary but the experiencing of the one is the same as the experiencing of the whole of humanity.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote at #145: But I agree that he did bring it up and that it was right to ask him to elaborate but he wouldn't and my guess is that 'it' is indescribable and 'thought' will take and run with it.


You might be right but I don't think Scott WAS asking for a description of the indescribable when he asked "And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak."

In the bits of conversation with Alain Naude quoted above, K said:

How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask.

Is this "how" a search for a method? Is this "is it possible" speculation? Obviously not.

It seemed to me that K was eager to leave the exchange with Scott and others in order to challenge the Buddhist scholar on meditation. I could be wrong.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: But he is using the metaphor and image of "the stream" and it's only going to go so far. If am the stream and the stream is me, then how do I jump out of myself? The stream is jumping out of the stream? The imagery and logic break down.

idiot ? wrote: It is all too easy for assumption and misunderstanding to come in...


Are you sure that assumption has not “come in” when you say the logic of the stream breaks down? Any metaphor obviously only goes so far. Beyond a certain point, the intellect and reason must drop the metaphor. Beyond a certain point, everything that is known must be dropped. It is when one becomes attached to the metaphor itself, or attached to the desire to prove the metaphor wrong, etc., that assumption and misunderstanding come in, isn’t it? What is important is to understand oneself, not the metaphor. I think the importance of the metaphor of the stream of self is that it illustrates how the mind is carried or driven by pressures and currents which it is not aware of and does not understand. This powerful current is seen in mobs, in society, in politics, religion, education, fashion, entertainment, and so on. The “self” (the fragment) who is so carried or driven thinks that “he or she” is in control, thinks that he is acting out of his own intelligent choices, convictions or morality, and so on.

When I am “in” the stream, “I am” the self. That state of self-ignorance obstructs or blocks intelligence and love. Self is ignorance. The stream of consciousness, of self, of conditioning, of ignorance clouds the entire mind. It does not destroy intelligence; it clouds intelligence. But the ignorance of the stream or the self is NOT the totality of mind. Intelligence, love, compassion, are not OF or IN the stream. The total mind is thought and time, also intelligence, beauty, love, compassion, which are one indivisible quality, not a personal quality, not a quality of self. And without intelligence, there can be no understanding of relationship. So there can be no understanding IN the stream. “Stepping out” of the stream of suffering means the ending of ignorance, the freeing of the mind, as I see it.

There is a darkness in the wholeness of the mind which is self - which is put together by thought. But self is not the whole of thought and not the whole of the human being. The darkness invades, occupies, takes over, commandeers the human being, the human mind. This darkness is this stream, this powerful current, which has flowed through the generations, inwardly as self and outwardly as society. In the stream, there is nothing no love, no intelligence, nothing that is not put together by thought. So this is the “me” which is the stream.

And there is the “me” which is the whole human being - love, intelligence, compassion, thought or intellect, and so on - the “me” which observes, which needs to communicate in relationship. The whole human being needs (so far) a functional or utilitarian “me” in order to communicate.

As I see it, the human being who suffers, who has been observing his mind and has a certain understanding, has insight into the nature of self, into the root of suffering and into the fact that there is NOTHING he can do to escape suffering or end self. That suffering human can divest himself of his attachment to anger and fear and all their tributaries. So that he can observe them but not be led to action by the conflict that he “should” do something about them. He is not tethered to them, not compelled by them. He simply observes, learns, finds out about life beyond self. That is stepping out of the stream, to me.

So, to find that reality one must understand oneself, the structure and the nature of the self; and the structure and the nature of oneself is measurable by thought. It is measurable in the sense that thought can perceive its own activities, thought can see what it has created, what it has denied, what it has accepted; and when one realizes the limitations of thought, then perhaps one can go into that which lies beyond thought.

The thought which "can perceive its own activities" is not the self which is a fragment of thought. It is the unfragmented intellect, as I see it.

But I depart from K when he says "to find that reality". I think that self-understanding is not “to find that reality” as K says. Above all, one simply hungers for understanding on its own … not “in order to...”. No?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 20 Jun 2019

The following extracts are what I referenced in the first paragraph of my previous post. Transcribed by me (with ellipses) from

Dialogue with Alain Naudé, Malibu, January 26, 1972:

At 5:30 Alain Naudé says there must arise for every man the question: "One MUST come to ask a question: is there another dimension....?"

(6:13) K: I wonder if you would ask that question ... Your first question would be: ... How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask. Not whether gods exist, don’t exist … If I was in the stream ... I would say to myself, “Is there in me a place where there is no corruption, where there is real absolute peace, order? I would like to get at that, in spite of all the misery … my concern would be, Is there in this chaos, which is me … a place where the mind is completely quiet, full of beauty and the rest of it? I think I would ask that question.

(12:48) Then my next question is, "Is there something in ME - not invented, not supposed, not self-created myth - is there in me a peace, a silence, a beauty that is not corruptible, that doesn’t belong to the vulgar stream, that is not an illusion? … Is there something real when I have discarded the whole human culture … out of myself, is there something … real, unadulterated peace? I ask the question whether there is - when I have thrown out the whole invention of man …. is there a state of mind that’s really timeless? … Now how do I find out? A strange thing happens, because you have thrown out everything, your mind instantly has a different quality.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 20 Jun 2019

Ken D wrote at 120: Toward the very end, Scott Forbes again raises the issue of where this intelligence comes from but Krishnamurti says he won't play that game any longer.

As I see it, the seeming difficulty K had understanding the various questions put to him in this talk and his refusal to respond to this question of Forbes, indicate inattention, inner conflict, contradiction, division. K himself has put the same kinds of questions in other talks (see the next post below for an example). It seemed to me that he was just jumping to conclusions as to what questioners meant and not listening attentively.

At 1:16:20 a young man (you inform us that he is Scott Forbes) asked:

Young Man: For the man who has stepped out of the stream and is no longer a manifestation of the stream, there is something else which is operating. Could we say something about the nature of that thing? K answers: Which is intelligence. Intelligence is love. Intelligence is compassion. YM: And from many things you’ve said in the past, that seems to have an independent existence. K: Obviously. YM: Even before, or without it manifesting in him. K: If A’s consciousness is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is entirely different. It’s a different dimension altogether. YM: And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak. K: Ah, now you are speculating. YM: Yes, I am. K: I won’t play with you.

Why does K introduce “an entirely different consciousness, a different dimension altogether” and then refuses to answer a question which, as a result, arose for YM - Scott Forbes - about that new dimension? Scott’s question is the question I myself would have wanted to ask. Obviously, IN the stream that is the self, there is no “altogether different dimension”. I don’t see Scott’s question as speculation at all. Scott numbly agreed that, yes, he was speculating but I don’t think he WAS speculating. He was asking, wanting to understand what K was saying. I think he was shocked, too shocked to challenge K about speculating.

Then another young man says:

YM2: Perhaps another way to say it would be: is there intelligence without the intelligent person?

K: ... Let’s put it another way. Wars have created a great deal of misery. Right? And that misery remains, in the air. Goodness has been also part of man, trying to be good. There’s also that enormous reservoir of both. One doesn’t contribute to that goodness, but one is always contributing to the other.

MZ: Are you saying the other exists only in the human psyche but goodness exists apart from humanity?

K: Let’s put it this way. There is not only A suffering, there is this whole suffering of mankind.

MZ: Or more than mankind. There is suffering.

K: There is suffering. Of course.

Out of the blue, K drops this very fruitful (to me) exchange and turns to one of the Buddhist scholar to talk about meditation.

K: Sir, would you kindly explain what is Buddhist meditation.

The rest of the talk is wasted on K challenging the scholar about meditation. As I see it, he was also inattentive here. K was being what I can only call competitive, petty, conceited aggressive and controlling as he tried to push the Buddhist to say that there is a method to HIS (the Buddhist) meditation.

This is NOT to say that I discard everything K has said. I do not. K is not perfect and K is not infallible and I don’t begrudge him being imperfect and fallible. It does not make less truthful the truths that he pointed out, as I see it. It means that I must be vigilant and see things for myself, not be like a politician who strives to make everything fit a personal “vision”, personal desires, and so on.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Mon, 17 Jun 2019


I do agree that aside from memory and its derivatives (knowledge, opinion, theory, belief, etc.), there are also mental processes such as reasoning, extrapolating, categorizing, comparing, and so on. As I see it, the mental connections or pathways established by these processes are essential for giving meaning to memory. Without these processes, memory would be a meaningless collection of words, phrases, images, and so on, wouldn’t it?

In fact, it seems to me that consciousness as we know it DOES disappear where the content is “removed” and/or where mental connections and pathways are disrupted or broken, as in Alzheimer’s to illustrate. In a sense, memory and its derivatives have no meaning on their own, that is, no meaning without the processes which process them. I could be mistaken.

It seems to me that when K says that consciousness is its content, it merely means that there is no “SELF” outside of consciousness who “owns, manages and controls” the content of consciousness..

“Consciousness is it content” does not mean that the content of consciousness is useless, unnecessary or dangerous , as I understand it. The very seeing that consciousness is its content does not “remove” the content which IS consciousness. Seeing that consciousness is its content merely removes the illusion that there is a duality in consciousness - a duality of “me” and the content - as I understand it. There is only the content and this content - consciousness - is not the totality of the mind.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Mon, 17 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote at #79: K says consciousness is its content! DB says, wait, a glass is not the water it contains. K says it's all one.


One Self's comment made me look at what you wrote in #79.

As I see it, consciousness is not a container in the way that a glass contains water. Where a glass contains water, there are clearly 2 objects - the container and its content. Each can and does exist on its own: the glass as an empty glass, the water as a puddle.

When K says that consciousness is its content, isn’t it because there simply is NO container outside of the “content”, outside of the totality of the brain’s memories (as knowledge, belief, opinion, etc.)? So the totality of memory is consciousness and consciousness is not a container. No? There is no consciousness or “me” which possesses or controls its memories, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc. Consciousness IS THE TOTALITY of memories, not a container holding the content. Isn't what holds the content "together" the very illusion of a separate self?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote at #77: The whole is everything, totality. To talk about the "whole consciousness of man" is to divide it off from other consciousness, like that of animals. So it ain't so whole anymore.

Either totality is, which means thought has stilled to zero, or some subset of totality is considered, which means that thought has seeped back in.

To talk of the whole consciousness of man is not necessarily to separate it from other consciousnesses. Man may be “one with the tree” psychologically, but he separates himself from the tree by observing it through time, through knowledge, through emotion. Whatever man’s consciousness is, it is not divided by the mere fact of observing his own consciousness. Self-understanding comes through self-observation. What else can be observed directly, not as an idea or as a theory, but simply through choiceless awareness? The human mind is observing itself. “Itself” is mankind. The human mind cannot DIRECTLY observe the dolphin mind or the tree mind through choiceless awareness. Where there is choiceless awareness, where there is no time, no memory, no knowledge, what is seen, what is observed?

It may very well be that there is “one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of“, as Jamie says. As I see it, it is beyond my ability to observe that directly or understand it. Perhaps a scientist like Bohm or Einstein can come to it, I don’t know. As I see it, this is one of the things that is beyond the limits or capabilities of thought, and beyond choiceless awareness, direct observation and human understanding. It can only be speculation as I see it. And THAT is where thought creeps in, isn't it?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

I see a parallel between the layers of consciousness and the layers of the ocean (from top to bottom, the sunlight zone, the twilight zone, the midnight zone, the abyss and the trenches). As far as I know, there are no clear divisions or barriers between these layers. And yet, the forms of life, activities, temperatures, atmospheric pressures, and so on, in each layer are quite different and distinct. Does this mean that the ocean is not one?

The same parallel can be made for the Earth as a whole. I remember (but can’t provide a reference) Jacques Cousteau saying that the chemicals from every cigarette smoked on Earth end up in the ocean. The effects of man-made pollution are more and more obvious - from the Earth’s outer atmosphere, to the depths of the oceans.

And looking with the mind’s eye at the universe as a whole, no dividing barriers are seen.

So all these levels exist as one goes about one's daily tasks and activities, in awareness or no awareness, in attention or inattention.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: To say that nearly all human beings approach life as separate selves is clearly true. To say that in general we share similar experiences is also obvious. Most everyone would accept those. But that is quite different from saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion.

Suppose I said that all pencils are writing implements. Some may have sharper or duller points or their points may be broken off, but basically they are all writing implements and their purpose is to be useful for writing. We'd likely agree. But if I said therefore there is only one pencil. It is an illusion that there are separate pencils. Most people would say wait a minute, that's both untrue and illogical.

I understand the difficulty (I think). But I’m not just referring to the fact that the psychological processes of self and time are the same in all mankind. I mean that the inner state - the movements of thought and emotion - of the human being is not hermetically sealed off from and impervious to his environment, and vice-versa. For example, if one is in a room where there is angry shouting going on, doesn’t it have a direct impact on one’s inner state? Also if there's shooting or fighting in the street outside. Or if you witness an injustice on TV or in person. Or if you witness kindness. Isn't the impact of all this on the inner state observed if one is attentive? So “outer” behaviour - the environment - impacts the inner, negatively and positively. To think that "what I do" is none of anyone’s business is not a reflection of fact, as I see it.

Another example: you know how some people are very prickly and quick to anger when they feel criticized. Someone might say something to them when they don’t pick up after their dog, or when they are seen verbally or physically abusing their child, or when they steal from the office, or cheat on their income taxes, and so on. (There’s also the issue of “why” one might feel compelled to make such criticism but it's not what we're looking into right now). What’s relevant here in terms of our questioning the “oneness of consciousness”, is the kind of responses that are often given: “What’s it to you? It’s none of your business.” In other words, the person - the mind, the so-called “individual” - thinks that whatever he or she does is nobody’s business but his own, that it is “not supposed to” have any impact on “society”, on the human collective. Doesn’t such anger also stem from the concept of a separate self?

As I see it, K was addressing this same issue of oneness in different words when he said:

"So, if we are clear that the outer is the inner - the inner is the outer, that there is not the division, the society and the individual, the collective and the separate human being, but the human being is the whole, he is the society, he is the separate human individual, he is the factor which brings about this chaos.”

As for the example of the pencils, I think there is no parallel with what we’re talking about, which is consciousness. I think you would agree that pencils have no consciousness, no notion of self or time, no conflict, desire, fear, and so on!


K also said somewhere (I can’t find a quote) that saying that there is no division between me and the tree doesn’t mean that I AM actually the tree. It means that psychologically, there is no division, that I don’t look at the tree through my memories, knowledge, and so on.

I don’t know if I’m clear.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 14 Jun 2019


I WAS essentially responding to your post #58, via your post #57, if you know what I mean. I have nothing to add about the question of one consciousness.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 14 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote: You are your own worst enemy when it comes to understanding what K is pointing out.

idiot ? wrote: Of course. The same is true for you and for everyone.

Isn’t this the very essence or crux of the meaning of it - “the consciousness of mankind is one”? Every so-called individual views life and approaches life’s problems through the viewpoint of the illusory self-centre looking outwardly: I’m afraid, I get angry, I’m conceited, I’m aggressive, I’m deceitful, I hate myself, I love myself, I hate the world, I'm a victim, I'm a winner, I've been wronged, I look out for myself, and so on.

The individual narratives differ, the circumstances differ, the sophistication, crassness, style or polish of individual behaviour differs, the expressions and degrees of deceit, pretense, anger and fear vary, and so on. But every single “individual” approaches life and faces life’s challenges THIS WAY - through the illusory self. Isn’t it so? And isn't this approach to life responsible for all conflict, chaos, deterioration, danger, and so on? Isn’t the total consciousness of man as it presently is - one in this way?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: chanting and marching with signs

People can demonstrate without chanting and signs, even perhaps spontaneously without organizing, can't they?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Shouldn't you be sure before you put your life at risk that what you are doing is something that actually makes a difference rather than a temporary reformation... and something that won't simply be undone in the future by different players?


Such certainty and guarantee about the future outcome of action cannot be had, can it? There's no such thing, is there?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Can you and I, Sean, call for a global demonstration, to be carried out silently and peacefully by all citizens of the world, demanding right action from political, religious, social and business leaders. Can this be done? Any ideas?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote: So an intelligent person might say "we must campaign peacefully to put limits on how corporations act". Would this just breed more conflict or would it help protect our endangered planet?


I personally don’t have an automatic objection to peaceful demonstration. What seems peaceful outwardly or superficially may be conflictual inwardly, or it may be peaceful.

We have been looking into self-ignorance, inner division, time, intelligence, love, attention, understanding and so on. For me, it is the inner state which is the touchstone, the thing which determines what is at the root of action. If the inner state is conflicted, self-centred, if action is rooted in fear, hate, conceit, desire, greed, and so on, the action is inevitably divisive and conflictual, as I see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote: So an intelligent person might say "we must campaign peacefully to put limits on how corporations act". Would this just breed more conflict or would it help protect our endangered planet?

I personally don’t have an automatic objection to peaceful demonstration. What seems peaceful outwardly or superficially may be conflictual inwardly, or it may be peaceful.

We have been looking into self-ignorance, inner division, time, intelligence, love, attention, understanding and so on. For me, it is the inner state which is the touchstone, the thing which determines what is at the root of action. If the inner state is conflicted, self-centred, if action is rooted in fear, hate, conceit, desire, greed, and so on, the action is inevitably divisive and conflictual, as I see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: K is talking about radical revolution, not a gradual improvement of character. He's talking about an eruption, a complete break.

That is what this early quote is saying, yes?

Which means what? That K is talking to no one?


Isn’t K talking to whoever realizes and is facing the fact that he is “really in conflict”? In the observation of inner conflict, there is only that. Blaming of the environment, speculating about the future or about what the ending of conflict might be like, is an attempt to avoid the inner conflict and therefore an extension of the conflict, as I see it. Any such avoidance is also observed.

For one who is in conflict, isn't talk about "the miraculous, the earthshaking revolution" speculation and time?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Today's quote of the day (Ojai, California | 9th Public Talk 28th June, 1934):

What I am saying can only apply to those who are really in conflict, not to those who want to reform, who want to do patchwork. I have explained what I mean by reform, by patchwork - it is an adjustment to an environment, born out of the lack of understanding.

You and I have to feel the fire burning in ourselves, inwardly, in order to come to right action. The fire is conflict, which is rooted in self-ignorance, isn’t it? As long as we think the fire is only burning “out there” and that "out there" is what needs to be fixed, we cannot act rightly, as I see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote at 177: When your house is on fire you first must put out the fire then you can sit around and discuss how the fire started.

Jack, I don’t disagree that capitalism is destructive. As Tom pointed out, overthrowing capitalism as a way to put out the fire has been tried and failed abjectly. It failed because the root of the problem was not understood, as I see it. Capitalism has not organized greed, greed has organized capitalism. Capitalism is not the cause of the problem. The cause is the disordered psyche. Greed, fear, hate, measure, comparison, etc., are symptomatic of the disorder. And the root of it is self-ignorance, isn't it?

Capitalism is a product of greed. The fire did not start with capitalism. The fire burns because of self-ignorance, doesn't it? So the fire can only be put out by the ending of self, not by overthrowing capitalism, as I see it.

Of course, one can still do what one can do politically, economically, socially, educationally, etc. But whatever one does inevitably fuels the fire if it is done self-righteously, violently, hatefully, with condemnation, with an ideal, as see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Mon, 03 Jun 2019

Where there is attention, is there analyzing, evaluating or measuring?

Is there the understanding of thought's limitations? IS thought limited? Or does thought have the ability to choose "right action" by deliberating and evaluating? Is there attention in the efforts of thought to measure or decide what should or should not be done?

Added: I’m asking, doesn’t attention give the understanding that acts rightly in the circumstances of the moment? Surely right action is not rigid or set in stone, but flexible.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Mon, 03 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote: While I am still in conflict, can I nevertheless peacefully campaign for measures to be taken which will seemingly bring about very positive outcomes?

Of course, I see no contradiction in that, as long as there is awareness or attention in the doing of it. That's why I asked earlier, "Isn’t the essential thing for each one of us to understand the relationship between the external problems and the inner conflict so that, whatever our station in society, our understanding acts?" Each one of us does what he can, according to his station, abilities and circumstances, don't you think? And if there is awareness, such action is without self-righteousness, false humility, hate, division, and so on.

Elsewhere, Tom had given the example of a long-ago colleague in an institution who gave hugs to a severely disabled young man. I wasn't suggesting that such actions of love should not be taken!

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Mon, 03 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote: If you already think you know then it's pointless. I pointed something out about capitalism and you came up with a word salad that was more or less fact free and just your opinion. I think you would rather argue than actually have a discussion.


What is each one of us doing here? What has drawn us to this place? Isn’t it wanting to understand the human sorrow that each one of us feels? What is the point of talking about awareness and attention, about division, consciousness, time and images, about anger if fear, and so on, if in the moment of being challenged, it all goes out the window and we cannot stick with it, we cannot stay with the fact, facing whatever comes up inwardly? What is really going on at THIS MOMENT? Can each one of us understand THAT? Are ideas what matter? If we don’t agree, can’t we go deeper into the cause of the intellectual and emotional division, patiently?

Isn't there a spontaneous affection for anyone who suffers - me, you, all of us?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Mon, 03 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote: you put quote marks around the word overthrowing. Who are you quoting? I didn't use that word.

At 0:34 of the video link given by Sean, Monbiot says “we have to overthrow the system”.

Huguette . wrote: So are you proposing, like Monbiot, that overthrowing capitalism will solve the crisis?

Are you proposing or suggesting anything? Why wouldn't you try to educate me and others? What are you doing here then? Are we not trying to educate ourselves by questioning and talking things over together? "Educate" in the sense of understanding, not in the sense of providing statistics and knowledge?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Mon, 03 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote at 158: 1. He questioned whether continuing to use GDP as a measure of human welfare was sensible. 2. He pointed out the very positive effects re-wilding can have to the planet.

It so happens I do agree with these 2 observations.

As I see it, the rich man’s obsession with the economy is a reflection of his personal greed and desire for enrichment, not a reflection of his concern for the well-being of his fellow man. The rich man's greed is then turned into propaganda aimed at the toiling man claiming that the economic measures taken by the rich are for the well-being of the toiling man. The obsession with “the economy” that is manifested in almost every newscast is both a hysteria and a propaganda, as I see it. It is seen that GDP or the economy is NOT the measure of humanity’s well-being and cannot be the remedy for humanity’s suffering. “The economy” is a concept, an artificial entity measured by graphs, charts, ideas, beliefs and more concepts. The ordinary man toils because life demands it.

It is also seen that rewilding is essential. The miraculous planet can restore itself but we “paved paradise and turned into a parking lot” (Joni Mitchell) and are now facing the inevitable consequences.

The question is, how do we go about fixing the problems? Beyond the observations about GDP and rewilding, what do we actually DO? Aren’t the same psychological processes that are responsible for the chaos - aren’t the very same processes trying to fix it through the known ways? Doesn’t fixing it “the old way” still mean propaganda (so-called “education”), legislation, compulsion, war? Can propaganda, legislation, compulsion, conflict, end the crisis facing humanity? Isn’t the essential thing for each one of us to understand the relationship between the external problems and the inner conflict so that, whatever our station in society, our understanding acts and there is an organic recovery?

Just as the planet can recover or restore itself if it is not continually assaulted, is it possible that humanity can find a natural equilibrium in all its relationships, through self-understanding? I'm not saying it can. I'm questioning.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Sun, 02 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote: Capitalism is largely responsible for bringing the world to the point of destruction.

I disagree, Jack. As I see it, capitalism has not organized greed. Greed has organized capitalism. You don’t see it that way? Do you think it’s a distinction without a difference? To me, it’s an essential difference. Capitalism is “out there”, others are responsible for it, not me. But greed is within.

As I see it, capitalism is not the heart of the problem and “overthrowing” capitalism is not the solution. Isn’t this just another idea engendered by the same old mind proposing the same old solutions to be put into "action" through the old process of effort, compulsion, division and so on? If it is the old mind, the old brain, the old consciousness, which is the problem, nothing that it decides or chooses to do can solve the problem, can it? Isn't this more or less what we talk about here? Either this is so and we truly see/understand it, or we don’t and we are just playing around with another “new” idea.

So are you proposing, like Monbiot, that overthrowing capitalism will solve the crisis? Or are you saying that it won’t but it might buy humanity more time? Or…..?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Sat, 18 May 2019

Sean Hen wrote: Here we are talking about observing ourselves inwardly as well as observing outwardly. Does this involve a different kind of intelligence?

There is intelligence, which is impersonal, and there is personal talent or capacity, which is personal. Can intelligence be broken down into different parts? One kind of intelligence for mechanics, art, science, music, education, politics, and so on? We can see that people who are “gifted” in these different fields are just as self-centred, afraid, aggressive, cruel etc. as the rest of us. So talent or capacity is not intelligence, it seems to me.

Sean Hen wrote: Krishnamurti, apparently, was constantly aware of thought as it arose.

I don’t want to provoke a controversy but I don’t think that this is so. So it is better to leave K out of it in this respect, isn’t it?

Is it the fact that we drift in an out of attention that prevents us from understanding ourselves? We start where we are. We start as we are. We are attentive and then we are inattentive and then attentive again. We are selfish, greedy, afraid, angry, loving, patient, impatient. When we realize that we are inattentive, we are attentive. And when we are attentive, we can learn.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Sat, 18 May 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Is it because it is arduous that there is a laziness and a preference in the brain to go with the non-arduousness of the 'automatic' thinking without awareness?

We respond [to sorrow] by trying to explain the cause of sorrow, or by escaping from sorrow; but our sorrow doesn't end. ... We know very well what causes sorrow - poverty, ill health, frustration, the lack of being loved, and so on. And when we have explained the various causes of sorrow, we haven't ended sorrow ...

"We know very well what causes sorrow” because self-observation has revealed it. In the very seeing of the cause of sorrow with total clarity, the mind also sees the futility of making efforts to end sorrow, doesn't it? It is one perception - seeing the cause and seeing the futility.

Understanding this, the mind is naturally alert for the slightest movement of thought, as it would be alert for the cobra. And to be alert is arduous, isn't it? Even in watching for the cobra, might the mind not get understandably tired and become inattentive?

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 530 in total